coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Łódź, Poland.
9.  On 31 July 1992 the applicant sued the “Bolesławów” Agriculture Co-operative (Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Przetwórstwa Owoców i Warzyw “Bolesławów”) in the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking repayment of his indexed membership shares (udziały członkowskie).
10.  On 29 April 1993 the applicant asked the court to list a hearing. On 21 September 1993 the court held the first hearing and requested the applicant to submit certain documents. On 25 September 1993 the applicant submitted to the court his pleadings together with the relevant documents.
11.  On 17 May 1994 the court held the second hearing. It ordered an accountant of the co-operative to provide information about the management of the co-operative's assets. The documents were submitted to the court on 1 October 1994.
12.  The third hearing was held on 23 March 1995. On 4 May 1995 the applicant requested that the court issue an interim order (zarządzenie tymczasowe) and restrain the co-operative from selling or encumbering its property in order to safeguard his claim. On 5 July 1995 the court refused to issue the interim order. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 7 September 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first‑instance decision.
13.  On 16 November 1995 the Regional Court held the fourth hearing. The accountant of the co-operative summoned as a witness failed to appear due to illness.
14.  The next hearing, listed for 16 April 1996, was adjourned on the ground that the presiding judge was ill.
15.  On 20 April 1996 the applicant complained, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the length of the proceedings to the President of the Łódź Regional Court. On 30 April 1996 the President of the Regional Court instructed the President of the Civil Division of the Regional Court to list a hearing in the case. On 24 May 1996 the President of the Court of Appeal, informed the applicant that he would supervise the proceedings.
16.  On 18 June 1996 the court held the fifth hearing. The accountant summoned as a witness again failed to appear. The court adjourned the hearing until 22 October 1996. In addition the court ordered the defendant to submit certain documentary evidence.
17.  On 24 June 1996 the applicant complained for the second time to the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. He also sent a letter to the President of the Court of Appeal. In reply, the President of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that it was not possible to schedule a hearing before 22 October 1996.
18.  In the meantime the case was assigned to a new judge. On 24 September 1996 the court held a hearing. The hearing scheduled for 22 October 1996 was adjourned due to the presiding judge's illness.
19.  On 28 February 1997 the court held the last (seventh) hearing. According to the applicant's submissions, the court invited him to settle the case. On the same date the parties reached a friendly settlement and the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Warsaw.
5.  On 21 March 1994 the Municipal Housing Board for Warsaw‑Żoliborz (Zarząd Budynków Komunalnych ”Żoliborz”) lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against the applicant. The plaintiff sought to terminate the payment of an annuity (renta wyrównawcza) to the applicant.
6.  The trial court held hearings on 7 July, 19 October, 12 December 1994 and 9 February 1995.
7.  On 20 February 1995 the District Court exempted the applicant from the court-fees.
8.  On 5 March 1996 the court held a hearing.
9.  On 23 December 1997 the trial court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court in June 1998.
10.  On 9 March 1999 the court held a hearing.
11.  On 7 July 2000 the trial court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.
12.  On 17 July 2001 the trial court decided to exempt the applicant from the costs of the expert opinion.
13.  On 20 August 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
14.  On 23 October 2002 the court held a hearing.
15.  On 19 November 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the plaintiff's claim and increased the applicant's annuity.
16.  The parties did not appeal against it and the judgment became final.
7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Doncaster.
8.  The applicant was convicted in or around 1981 for the murder of an acquaintance. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment, and his tariff (the minimum period of imprisonment required to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) was set at 12 years.
9.  At the time of the applicant's latest Parole Board review in 2001, he was detained in HM Prison Wymott as a “Category C” prisoner (prisoners being given a security category classification ranging from Category A (highest risk) to Category D (suitable for open conditions)). The Parole Board recommended that the applicant should be transferred to open conditions, and that his detention should be reviewed after two years. By letter dated 6 July 2001 the Secretary of State informed the Prison Service that he did not accept the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions, and that the next review should begin after 12 months. In the letter to the applicant which accompanied the decision it was stated that:
“... [t]he Secretary of State attaches particular weight to the psychologist's report, it has highlighted in some detail, the need for further exploration of your insight into, and responsibility for, the index offence and the apparent lack of empathy towards the victim.”
10.  In June 2001 the applicant was transferred to HM Prison Manchester. He claimed that he did not receive notification of the parole decision until sometime after 13 September 2001. The Government stated that a copy of the decision letter was sent to the applicant on 6 July 2001 and a copy to the solicitors then acting for the applicant on 7 August 2001. When the applicant changed his solicitors in September 2001, the authorities sent a copy of the decision to the new solicitors.
11.  The applicant stated that he wanted to seek judicial review of the decision, but was unable to find a solicitor who was prepared to act on his behalf. His then solicitors gave advice that judicial review stood little prospect of success as the reports recommending a move to open conditions had been slightly ambiguous, there were a number of very unfavourable reports and the Secretary of State had given extensive reasons for rejecting the recommended move.
12.  The applicant's first Parole Board oral hearing under new arrangements was scheduled for November 2003. At the applicant's request, it was deferred until May 2004 to allow the applicant time to complete certain courses identified in the reports for the Parole Board review.
8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Michalovce.
9.  On 28 September 1993 and on 15 March 1994 respectively the Regional Social Security Office in Michalovce issued two decisions ordering the applicant to pay a total of 12,512 Slovakian korunas. The sum included social insurance fees which the applicant had failed to pay and an administrative fine. The decisions became final on 18 October 1993 and on 6 April 1994 respectively.
10.  On 14 October 1994 the Regional Social Security Office in Michalovce brought judicial enforcement proceedings against the applicant under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11.  On 18 November 1994 the Michalovce District Court ordered the enforcement of the sum due by selling the applicant's movable property. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 1996. On 7 October 1996 the applicant appealed.
12.  On 1 August 1996, the Michalovce branch office of the Social Security Administration requested the Michalovce District Court that the sum due be enforced by an enforcement officer, that is pursuant to Act No. 233/1995. In a letter dated 7 August 1996 and delivered on 12 August 1996 a judge informed the Social Security Administration that the District Court approved of the request.
13.  On 6 February 1997 the Michalovce branch office of the Social Security Administration requested an enforcement officer to enforce the applicant's debt pursuant to Act No. 233/1995. On 10 March 1997 the Michalovce District Court authorised the enforcement officer to carry out the enforcement in accordance with Act No. 233/1995.
14.  On 13 and 26 June 1997 the applicant filed objections to the enforcement. On 28 September 1998 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the applicant's objections to the enforcement.
15.  On 25 October 2000 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the applicant's above appeal of 7 October 1996 which it had qualified as a request for the enforcement to be discontinued. On 21 and 30 November 2000 the applicant appealed.
16.  According to the documents submitted by the applicant, the sum due was enforced by partial payments deducted from his old-age pension between February 1999 and August 2001.
17.  On 15 October 2001 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision of 25 October 2000.
4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1939 respectively and live in Istanbul.
5.  On 6 September 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in Istanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicants and compensation was paid to them when the expropriation took place.
6.  On 4 February 1994, following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, the Kartal First Instance Court awarded them additional compensation of 48,410,250,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. The date, 6 September 1993 was fixed by the domestic court for the running of the statutory rate of interest. The parties appealed.
7.  On 12 May 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court. On 2 November 1994 the first instance court re-examined the case and amended the amount of the additional compensation to TRL 45,692,700,000. The decision became final since none of the parties appealed. On 29 December 1997 the administration paid the applicants TRL 95,426,696,000 as the additional compensation together with interest. The interest on the additional compensation was calculated at the statutory rate applicable between the date of the decision of the first instance court in favour of the applicant and 31 December 1997.
8.  Between 1993 and 1999 the rate of inflation averaged 81.7% per annum.
8.  The applicants, Mr Alfred Lotter and Ms Edith Lotter (Bernhart), are Austrian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1962 respectively. At the relevant time they were married together. The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
9.  The applicants visited Bulgaria for the first time in December 1992. They entered Bulgaria again on 1 March 1993 and remained in the country for the following several years. In 1993 they obtained temporary residence permits valid until 6 November 1995.
10.  On 22 April 1993 the investigation authorities opened a criminal investigation into the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In April and July 1993 the first applicant and other followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses were questioned.
11.  In June 1994, following a legislative amendment requiring religious associations to re‑register, by decision of the Council of Ministers a number of such associations, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organisation in Bulgaria, were refused re‑registration (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/98, Commission’s decision of 3 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90, p. 77). Although the applicants were not members of the dissolved association, it was an established administrative practice in Bulgaria to consider that the Council of Ministers’ decision of June 1994 rendered unlawful all religious activity related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ cult.
12.  On 1 December 1995, acting on the recommendation of the Plovdiv security service, the police withdrew the applicants’ residence permits and ordered them to leave Bulgaria by 29 December 1995. The police decisions only stated that they were based on section 31(1) of the Aliens (Residence in Bulgaria) Act, which provided that an alien could be refused the right to reside in Bulgaria if he or she has endangered the security or the interests of the State or his or her activities could pose a threat in this respect. No reasons were provided.
13.  The applicants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. In a decision of 15 March 1996 that court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the appeal as under section 34(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act measures relating to the national security were excluded from judicial review.
14.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. On 6 May 1997 the Supreme Court, which had in the meanwhile become the Supreme Administrative Court, dismissed the appeals.
15.  The first applicant left Bulgaria at the end of 1997. It appears that the applicants divorced. The second applicant married a Bulgarian citizen and stayed in Bulgaria.
16.  Following several months of negotiations, in February 1998 the Bulgarian Government and persons representing the dissolved association of Jehovah’s Witnesses signed a friendly settlement in the proceedings before the former Commission (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/95, Commission’s report of 9 March 1998, DR 92, p. 44). Since October 1998 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria enjoy the status of a religious denomination.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Jarosław, Poland.
5.  On 4 November 1994 the applicant lodged with the Jarosław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against the Jarosław City Council (Gmina Miejska) in which she requested the court to amend the land register. She further applied for exemption from the court fees.
6.  On 21 November 1994 the case was transferred to the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
7.  On the same day, upon the court’s request, the applicant specified her claim.
8.  On 30 January 1995 the court partly exempted the applicant from the court fees.
9.  In April 1995 the court again ordered the applicant to specify her claim.
10.  On 24 April 1995 the Regional Court held the first hearing.
11.  Subsequently, the hearings were held on 20 June and 3 October 1995. At the latter hearing the court ordered an expert opinion.
12.  On 16 April 1996 an expert submitted his opinion to the court.
13.  On 27 August 1996 the court held a hearing at which it ordered a second expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court in January 1997.
14.  The next hearings were held on 31 January, 25 February, 18 March, 18 April and 30 May 1997.
15.  On 6 June 1997 the Przemyśl Regional Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim.
16.  On 4 August 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.
17.  On 7 October 1997 the applicant was partly exempted from the court fees in the appellate proceedings.
18.  On 8 October 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
19.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 20 November 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal exempted the applicant from the fees for lodging the cassation appeal.
20.  On 25 May 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it was manifestly ill-founded and raised no serious legal issues.
6.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Sansepolcro (Arezzo).
7.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to L.B.
8.  In a registered letter of 20 January 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1993 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 April 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 12 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 4 August 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1993.
11.  On 10 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 27 March 1995, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.
13.  Between 30 May 1995 and 7 May 1996, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 2 April 1997, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
15.  On 23 April 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.
16.  On 8 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1997.
17.  Between 23 June 1997 and 3 September 1998, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, on 31 August 1999, the tenant asked for a suspension of the eviction proceedings.
19.  On 15 December 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to postpone the eviction proceedings until 11 July 2002.
20.  On 11 July 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.
9.  In September 1980 the applicants were taken into police custody and were subsequently placed in detention on remand on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. The Erzincan Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Erzincan Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim askeri mahkemesi) charging the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation whose object was to undermine the constitutional order.
10.  On various dates between 1982 and 1984 the applicants were released pending trial.
11.  On 13 September 1988 the Erzincan Martial Law Court acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.
12.  On various dates in March, April and June 1989 the applicants brought individual actions before the Sinop Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law no. 466. They requested compensation for their unjustified detention on remand.
13.  On 20 October 1989 the court decided to join the applicants’ cases.
14.  On 15 December 1993 the Sinop Assize Court awarded non‑pecuniary compensation to the applicants. The applicants appealed, arguing that the amount of compensation awarded was not sufficient.
15.  On 31 January 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.
16.  On 6 June 1995 the Sinop Assize Court increased the amount of non‑pecuniary compensation.
17.  On 15 June 1995 the applicants again appealed.
18.  On 30 May 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the assize court.
6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1920, 1927, 1925 and 1928 respectively.
7.  On 29 July 1994 and on 16 February 1995 the Government and the Parliament passed two decisions according to which the deposits of certain categories of persons at the Savings Bank have to be index-linked. According to the decisions, the Ministry of Finance was supposed to allocate the necessary funds to the Savings Bank. However it failed to do so and the Savings Bank could not carry out the decisions of the Parliament and of the Government.
8.  In 2000 and 2001 the applicants lodged with the Râşcani District Court civil actions against the Ministry of Finance in which they sought compensation.
9.  By judgments of 25 August 2000 and 29 September 2000 the court awarded Ms Sofia Pasteli compensation of MDL 734[1] and MDL 1,466[2] respectively. No appeal was lodged and the judgments became final.
10.  By judgment of 6 December 2000 the court awarded Ms Nadejda Cernicov compensation of MDL 4,398[3]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.
11.  By judgment of 25 August 2001 the court awarded Mr Pavel Careţchi compensation of MDL 2,904[4]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.
12.  By judgment of 25 August 2001 the court awarded Ms Maria Careţchi compensation of MDL 5,876[5]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.
13.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments with the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority informed them that the judgments could not be enforced, as no funds had been provided for the enforcement of judgments by the relevant legislation within the annual State budget.
14.  On 22 April 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Finance.
6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova.
7.  The applicants are inspectors of the Chişinău Fire Department attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
8.  On 21 July 1994 the Government passed Decision No. 534-10, classified secret, which concerned the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of National Security (Intelligence Service) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to that Decision, among other things, the personnel of the above-mentioned institutions were entitled to a monthly allowance of approximately MDL 135 instead of the old allowance of MDL 7.06. This Decision was not published in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) and accordingly the applicants did not know about it.
The applicants started to receive the increased allowance on 1 June 1995. They found out that their colleagues from other Ministries had been receiving the higher rate from 1 July 1994.
9.  In June 1997 the applicants lodged an action with the Centru District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs seeking the payment of the increased allowance for the period July 1994 – June 1995.
By a judgment of 1 August 1997 the Centru District Court awarded Mr Gheorghe Bragoi, Mr Alexandru Usatîi and Mr Iulian Guştiuc compensation of MDL 1,407[1] each. By another judgment of 18 August 1997 the Centru District Court awarded Mr Pavel Sîrbu and Mr Vitalie Cornovan compensation of MDL 1,407 each and Mr Petru Bragoi compensation of MDL 1,127.02. No appeals were lodged and the judgments became final. Enforcement warrants were issued.
10.  On numerous occasions the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 1 August 1997 and 18 August 1997 with the Ministry of Justice. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments could not be enforced due to the “lack of funds in the bank account of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”.
11.  On 15 May 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.